Although the New York Times only turned its eye to the nuts and bolts of the new Tappan Zee Bridge project today, advocates, elected officials, and Hudson Valley residents have been working on the issue for years.

One of the more recent examples of this was a June conference at SUNY New Paltz’s campus at which a diverse group of stakeholders joined together for an event entitled “Is There a Hudson Valley Regional Agenda?” At the conference, hosted by Professor Gerald Benjamin’s Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach and organized by the Advocacy Coalition of the Hudson Valley, Citizens Budget Commission Vice President and Director of State Studies Elizabeth Lynam told attendees that the Hudson Valley had lost out on valuable Regional Economic Development Council funds because it lacked a well-defined agenda, but the day’s events clarified that there’s at least one vital regional goal for the Hudson Valley: transit in the I-287 corridor.

A panel at the conference, which featured Tom McGuinness of the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA), Nadine Lemmon of Tri-State, and moderator Ned Sullivan of Scenic Hudson, covered that crucial regional topic. During the discussion, McGuinness noted that NYSTA had “terminated” an earlier Tappan Zee project—one that could have advanced transit throughout the I-287 corridor—citing the costliness of bus rapid transit, even though the project had seen extensive public participation and was uniquely regional in scope. Cost estimates for bus rapid transit have been part of the state’s justification for excluding transit from the Tappan Zee Bridge project that followed the one that NYSTA terminated, but they have not been substantiated.

During the panel, Lemmon questioned this failure to include adequate provisions for transit in the new project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). She also pointed out that, as noted above, the study’s cost calculations were not adequately substantiated in the document, which meant that Tri-State had to file numerous Freedom of Information Law requests to understand the state’s analysis. Only recently were these requests fulfilled, months after the closure of the public comment period for the DEIS, preventing Tri-State and the public from providing adequate comments. In the short time since receipt of the documents, Tri-State has found that unclear and sometimes outdated cost calculations, insufficient labeling, and a lack of context have rendered many of the documents puzzling.

While McGuinness assured advocates that the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) would address participants’ concerns about the feasibility of ensuring “future transit” options on the bridge and a proposed connection to the Tarrytown Metro-North station via bus rapid transit, it is unclear how this will be done. Tri-State noted that with the comment period already closed, community members and public officials from Rockland and Westchester Counties—like conference attendee Croton-on-Hudson Mayor Leo Wiegman—no longer have a voice.

McGuinness also assured participants that dialogue surrounding the bridge will remain open as the state approaches its estimated July FEIS release date and selects a design/build firm proposal, although he did not expand upon when and how members of the Hudson Valley community would be able to provide input.

While the Hudson Valley may have lost out on funds due to a lack of a unified vision, the region is united around the need for transit on the Tappan Zee. It would be a shame for this vision to be compromised just so that Governor Cuomo could, in his own words, “prevail in the end.”